Mk. II and M43 Khukuri

[jdk1]

I entered the khukuri world knowing I was not and would not be a collector. Only users for me, thank you. Well, that didn’t last long. After amassing a small collection, I knew I had to have a vintage khuk. After going back and forth for a while, I ended up with two standard Mk. IIs made by Pioneer Calcutta, both marked 1943. Content and glad my wife hadn’t killed me for buying those, no one was more surprised than I to find a “WW 2 Kukri” for sale locally. After some haggling (and a few emails to Berk!), I purchased what I later confirmed was an unmarked M43 variant Mk. II with original (or correct at least) karda and chakma!

So, I now have a tidy little Mk. II non-collection and a few observations on this outstanding khuk. The M43 is thinner and more pointed than the other two. It also has a bit of a hollow forge on the blade. It feels lighter and more like a fighter. Only in the realm of khukuri is a ¼” thick blade a fighting knife! The Pioneers have a little more solid feel with their thicker spines and longer handles. They all feel wonderful in the hand though. I think I actually prefer the feel of the Pioneers, but that could have more to do with handle length. I also believe the roughly 3/8” spine at the bolster with a nice taper to the tip causes the Pioneers to have a solid, but nice balance. Interestingly, the M43 seems a bit better in overall fit and finish, with the bolster appearing to be part of the blade. The Pioneers also seem to have had their handles covered in dark paint or something thick and penetrating, which could be years of cosmoline. One shows some wood grain, but the other will require some elbow grease and possibly Kramer’s Antique Restorer, if not something stronger, while the M43 wood is nicely grained.

As to the sheaths, the M43 came with a traditional sheath of wood covered with a thin leather of some sort. This particular one did not age well due to its handling, but does have most of the frog intact. The military issue sheaths which came with the Pioneers are both marked with British military marks and are dated 1944. Neither has a frog. They seem to be made in a similar manner to the traditional sheath, but are quite thin overall. In spite of this thinness, they seem very solid and strong. The leather appears quite thick. They are protected with a nicely rounded brass (I believe) chape. These sheaths are so well preserved, though dirty and musty, I believe I could take them to the field as is and use them roughly for years. I would love to have this sheath available for my other khuks.

I now know why Bill is so fond of the Mk. II. It is a perfectly handy length and weight, but has plenty enough mass and momentum to chop whatever may need chopping. I believe it would make an ideal edged tool/weapon in the modern age, able to lop off limbs of any type with equal efficiency. It was and is a truly versatile tool. I hope to someday have a modern re-creation to use. These three old soldiers are on display enjoying a well-deserved rest.

For those unfamiliar with the historic M43, I’ll share some of what I learned about this khuk. First, I am no expert on these, far, far from it. Thankfully, there are some experts out there who freely share the fruits of their labor and, to them, I am very grateful. It appears even the experts share some disagreement on who made this khuk and exactly where it fits in the Mk. II picture. It seems apparent the M43 is a variant of the Mk. II, in some form or fashion. It follows the Mk. II measurements, shape, and construction very closely. The defining characteristics which identify it as an M43 seem to be the counter-sunk handle rivets, almost seamless bolster weld, and combination of two rings fore and three rings aft on the handle. It seems most are unmarked, and the few that are marked are only marked “M43”. Maker’s mark, inspector’s mark, company mark….who knows? It just adds to the mystique of this wonderful khuk.

If anyone has further information or can correct any mistake I may have made, please jump right in. The study of these vintage khukuri is fascinating, but often confusing.

And here are some details, for those interested. Switching between inch and metric measurements was a bit confusing, so please excuse any mistakes. Thanks for looking and take care.

Pioneer 1943 Mk. II #1

OAL – 17.5”/44.5 cm
Blade Length – 13.25”/33.65 cm
Weight – 24.8 oz./703 grams
Handle Length – 4.75”/12 cm
Spine Width: @Bolster – .35”/8.8 mm
@Shoulder in front of groove/Sword of Shiva – .26”/6.6 mm
@Tip – .128”/3.2 mm
Tang Width (middle between rings) - .132”/3.3 mm
Handle Width: @First Pin – .98”/24.9 mm
@Second Pin – .98”/24.9 mm
Belly Depth – 2.368”/60.14 mm


Pioneer 1943 Mk. II #2

OAL – 17.5”/44.5 cm
Blade Length – 13.25"/33.65
Weight – 24.2 oz./686 grams
Handle Length – 4.75/12 cm
Spine Width: @Bolster – .333”/8.45 mm
@Shoulder in front of groove/Sword of Shiva – .27”/6.8 mm
@Tip – .113/2.8 mm
Tang Width (middle between rings) - .15”/3.8 mm
Handle Width: @First Pin –1.06”/27 mm
@Second Pin – .97”/24.6 mm
Belly Depth – 2.365”/60.1 mm


Mk. II -M43 Variant, Unmarked

OAL – 17.5”/44.5 cm
Blade Length – 13.25"/33.65 cm
Weight – 23.1 oz./654.8 grams
Handle Length – 4.5”/11.4 cm
Spine Width: @Bolster – .264”/6.7 mm
@Shoulder in front of groove/Sword of Shiva – .243”/6.2 mm
@Tip – .122”/3.1 mm
Tang Width (middle between rings) - .165”/4.2 mm
Handle Width: @First Pin – 1.29”/32.7 mm
@Second Pin – .994”/25.2 mm
Belly Depth – 2.3”/58.4 mm

The three warriors (M43 at the bottom):

My attempt at art:

A Pioneer and the M43 side by side (M43 on bottom):

Close up of Pioneer and M43 handle (M43 on right):

A shot of a Pioneer and the M43 sheathed. My poor M43 sheath!

Close up of M43 K&C:

 

[7rip13a]

Congrats mate, handsome looking knives you have there.

 

[jdk1]

Thanks 7rip13a. I feel pretty lucky to have them. They are a nice bit of Gurkha history. Take care.

 

[Berkley]

Nice writeup:thumbup:.
Good thing you're not a collector, or you'd have to start looking for an "aircrew" variant.

 

[jdk1]

Ahh, the pesky aircrew rears its head! Too rare and spendy for my blood, unless of course I stumble upon one for the right price or find someone in central Texas willing to trade for a bottle of Khukri Coronation Rum I have been looking for a nice private purchase specimen to round out the Mk. II collection, I mean gaggle of Mk. IIs. My wife has been assured I'm not collecting these things. Just sort of running a hostel for wayward khuks needing rest Take care.

PS. Anyone else notice those aircrew Mk. IIs seem to be made just like the M43s, sheath, K&C, and all?

 

[Dirtbiker]

Is there a way to tell if you have the real deal? I'd buy some vintage kuks but there seem to be a lot of fakery out there.

 

[jdk1]

Is there a way to tell if you have the real deal? I'd buy some vintage kuks but there seem to be a lot of fakery out there.

I'm new to the whole vintage khuk thing. It seems the most commonly faked military khuk is the Mk. 3. Ebay is filled with Mk. 3 type khuks and they all seem to be "WWII Gurkha Issue" Some probably are, but some are obviously not. If you spend a few hours searching the net, you can get an idea of some of the more common fakes and features. I've personally never heard of a faked Mk. II, but as I said, I'm pretty new to this. The Mk. II requires some work since it has an integral, welded steel bolster, while the Mk. 3 design just has wooden slabs and is still made and sold in knife catalogs everywhere. If someone actually made an accurate Mk. II copy they could probably sell a ton of them as is! The only trickery I could imagine with the Mk. II would be selling one of the more common private purchase versions as an issue piece. The private purchase Mk. II types were commonly sold in India during and after WWII to servicemen, according to our resident experts (Spiral and Berk), and could have actually seen combat I would figure. So, they're certainly not void of historical value as is. IMA and Atlanta Cutlery are the only commercial sources for many of these military issue khuks as I understand it, since they were the folks who bought them all from Nepal. They are one way to get an authentic piece, otherwise you have to hit the net and take your chances. There are some great internet sites devoted to the research and study of historic khukuri, I'm not sure if linking them would violate rules. Your best bet is probably just hitting Google hard and learning all you can. I've found khuks a fascinating subject to study. Good luck.

 

[spiraltwista]

Excelent post JDK! enjoyed reading it & seeing your kukri.

As to Pioneers I think it one of the few ww2 mk.2 kukrimakes Ive never personaly handled. From photos of the genre they certanly look typicle of the mk.11s of the era & place.

I susspect m.43 is makers intial & year of manufacture, this was certanly required on the army blueprints for the mk.3 kukri dated 1943.


One of the the short , aircrew/tankcrew kukris certanly appears made by the same company, two I am aware of are also marked. m.43.

Ive had one clearly genuine m.43 marked kukri that has a raised ring on the grip, I assume it was early in the production run , before they realised how much timber could be saved by abolishing the ring.

Most m.43 Ive seen are private purchase or small unit purchases,possible including some US special forces. A few other rare pieces do carry Indian army inspection marks as well.

Cheers,
Spiral

 

[jdk1]

Thank you for the compliment Jonathan. I wasn't aware of some aircrew khukuri being marked M43. That pretty much confirms it as far as I'm concerned. The almost identical construction, albeit with a different design, had me convinced already. I also didn't know about the Mk. III requirements you mentioned. That's probably it then for the M43 marking. As for the Pioneers, they look much like most of the Mk. IIs of which I've seen photos. They seem well made, if a bit rougher than the M43. Being hand forged for military use, thier fit and finish is plenty good I would think. I wouldn't mind having a different example to compare, but fate dealt me two Pioneers and I'm satisfied. It does interest me that the handle is so much larger on the Pioneers, as compared to the M43. I assume I have larger hands than most Gurkha, being over six foot, yet I could use either of the Pioneers without much complaint as to the handle size. The M43, on the other hand, is a wee bit tight in length and girth of the handle. Thanks again everyone for your kind words and I would love to see some more Mk. IIs photos for comparison. Take care.

 

[Berkley]

For comparison, an early style Mk II with the raised grip ring to which Spiral refers.

 

[jdk1]

What amazes me Berk is the weight on that thing. That's only about 21 oz. With a full-tang (chiruwa) handle, welded steel bolster and steel pommel, I'd say that's pretty light. Like Sirupate light. What's the spine thickness? It just amazes me how a kami can beat that much steel down to that weight. For reference, my ESEE Junglas is 23 oz. and that's with a 3/16" spine and an inch shorter than Mk. II length. I also notice a very refined cho. Mine are rough, even the M43. Thanks for the pics

 

[shortwinger]

John,

You have seen mine but here they are again



It seems the more I find out about the MkII the more I like it. Unlike many other models, the MkII seems to be able to morph into the job at hand, going from a stabber, light and fast like a machete, turn into a heavy chopper and yet still be able to use like a knife.



If I were in a pre-gun, pre-modern transport type of military unit that spend considerable time in the bush and depended on a knife for defense, offense and utility, this would be one at the top of the list. The only sad thing to report about the MkII (M43) is that it appears that no kami alive can re-create one. And I don't say that lightly considering where this is being posted but honestly, no one is even coming close.

Some modern copies:

 

[JayGoliath]

I susspect m.43 is makers intial & year of manufacture, this was certanly required on the army blueprints for the mk.3 kukri dated 1943.
Cheers,
Spiral

I was wondering the same thing when i saw one at the Bay of E recently.Thanks for the heads up Jon!

Bill and John are right. There hasn't been a correct-to-date, proportionally built M-43 on the market that fits its original purpose.:grumpy:

 

[jdk1]

Thanks everyone for the replies. The lack of an accurate modern reproduction is even more puzzling since, in addition to the untold number of military Mk. IIs made, private purchase versions seem to have been hanging in every stall in India after WWII! As I've discussed with others, the CS Gurkha appears to me to have been loosely based on the Mk. II, but it's certainly not a replica. It seems it was a fairly easy khuk for kamis to produce back then, so I'm not sure what the issue could be today. The steel bolster and pommel are different than what we see in most khuks today, but I'm sure that isn't insurmountable. I think a 17.5”, 24ish ounce, short chiruwa handled khuk would sell quite well. Thanks again and take care.

PS. Bill, I can never see enough of those khuks

 

[yak23flora]

Thanks for the writeup, I am eagerly awaiting my first M43 from HI, I hope it will be here any day. I'll run it through its paces and will post about it. I too do not fancy myself a collector but a user, but you know how that goes. I already have my eye on several others. I'm going to see how this Khuk will manage in the yard and campsite, splitting wood, chopping and clearing, etc. I chose the M43 based on comments here, but think I might also like a heavier khuk. We shall see...

 

[shortwinger]

It seems it was a fairly easy khuk for kamis to produce back then, so I'm not sure what the issue could be today. The steel bolster and pommel are different than what we see in most khuks today, but I'm sure that isn't insurmountable. I think a 17.5”, 24ish ounce, short chiruwa handled khuk would sell quite well.

John,

That bolster is a key point and it is one of the most consistant mistakes made in its reproduction. The modern bolsters take up about a 1/2 inch of valuable handle space. When you couple this big bolster with the larger (monsterous) handles there is really no way to produce a kukri with the balance and feel of the originals.

The modern repro's are plagued with massive spines adding too much weight, incorrectly shaped blades, dimensions that are not only out of wack but, they are inconsistantly out of wack. Handles, bolsters and full tangs take up what used to be blade space and add far too much weight to the handle. This not only changes the entire balance it also adds vibration to the hand. Most that use their kukri will tell you that this weight redistribution to the handle dramatically takes away from the chopping power of the belly or sweet spot, which means that you must use more power with each stroke to get the same results.

In short you can put whatever name on these you want but they are as close to the MkII as a BAS.

 

[selanne8]

has anyone asked auntie for a custom order that matches the MkII in terms of weight and size (18 inches and 21 oz)?

 

[stickfred]

First, Thanks for the write-up on your "non-collection" jdk1. It's always good to see these older blades shared.

Second:

has anyone asked auntie for a custom order that matches the MkII in terms of weight and size (18 inches and 21 oz)?

Yes. If I remember correctly, nearly a year ago there was much discussion about doing just that. It obviously didn't happen and perhaps it is due to a lack of a properly skilled kami. Since Bura has been out of commision and many of the older kamis have left, it appears that the newer kamis haven't been able to get it done although I have seen strides made in some models.

Third:

Good thing you're not a collector, or you'd have to start looking for an "aircrew" variant.

and

For comparison, an early style Mk II with the raised grip ring to which Spiral refers.

Thanks for throwing more fuel on the fire, but thanks more for sharing your knowledge and pictures with us. Glad to see you're still around Berk.

 

[sta94]

I'm new to the whole vintage khuk thing. It seems the most commonly faked military khuk is the Mk. 3. Ebay is filled with Mk. 3 type khuks and they all seem to be "WWII Gurkha Issue" Some probably are, but some are obviously not. If you spend a few hours searching the net, you can get an idea of some of the more common fakes and features. I've personally never heard of a faked Mk. II, but as I said, I'm pretty new to this. The Mk. II requires some work since it has an integral, welded steel bolster, while the Mk. 3 design just has wooden slabs and is still made and sold in knife catalogs everywhere. If someone actually made an accurate Mk. II copy they could probably sell a ton of them as is! The only trickery I could imagine with the Mk. II would be selling one of the more common private purchase versions as an issue piece. The private purchase Mk. II types were commonly sold in India during and after WWII to servicemen, according to our resident experts (Spiral and Berk), and could have actually seen combat I would figure. So, they're certainly not void of historical value as is. IMA and Atlanta Cutlery are the only commercial sources for many of these military issue khuks as I understand it, since they were the folks who bought them all from Nepal. They are one way to get an authentic piece, otherwise you have to hit the net and take your chances. There are some great internet sites devoted to the research and study of historic khukuri, I'm not sure if linking them would violate rules. Your best bet is probably just hitting Google hard and learning all you can. I've found khuks a fascinating subject to study. Good luck.

Re: The MK3 style kukris that are seen all over the place being advertised as WW2 mil-issue kukris, they're mostly (all) made in India, one of the main manufacturers being Windlass Steelcrafts. They've been sold by Atlanta Cutlery for years now. Windlass and AC do not advertise these as antiques, only that these are being built the same way since 1943. As for why we see so many MK3 style kukris and so few MK2 is probably (and I'm speculating here) because the MK3 replaced the MK2 towards the end of WW2. Production of the various MK2 styles for military-issue seems to have stopped by the end of WW2 while the MK3 continued being manufactured in post-independent India by several contractors for decades, with at least one (Windlass) still churning them out today.

My brother-in-law has a MK3 kukri with “RFI 1969” stamped on it, which I believes stands for “Rifle Factory Ishapore” and was manufactured in 1969. It's a nice, well-built kukri and made its way to him through another relative who was presented it by a high ranking Indian Army officer sometime in the 1970s or 80s. I've seen other MK3 kukris with date stamps from the 1950s and 60s. I'm guessing that a large number of these MK3s continued to be issued to the Indian armed forces through at least the 1950s and 60s, although I don't know if MK3s were issued to ALL Gorkha units. I grew up in an Indian Army Gorkha unit in the 1970s and 80s and do not recall seeing a MK3 kukri back then! Anyways, I digress ... there seems to have been enough of these MK3 style kukris around that along with the touristy lions-head pommel kukris, they seem to have been exported to the US, UK, etc. in large quantities for a long long time now. However, there seems to have been a drop in quality of these mass-manufactured India MK3 style kukris in recent decades and these are what you usually see on the Internet - they do not compare to the better quality older MK3 kukris - WW2 era and mil-issue 1950s and 60s vintage MK3s.

Again, the above is just my speculation and I'm no expert on the subject so please do not take it as gospel.

Thank you!

 

[sta94]

And now back to the topic of the various MK2 kukris, here are pics of mine below. I apologize for bad quality pictures as most of these were taken in a hurry in bad lighting conditions (at night in storage facility). Also, all these kukris are not with me at present so I cannot give you all the details for them. I also forget the exact details of the markings on some of these kukris - sorry!

M43-type MK2 kukris - regular length and shorter-length M43 kukris, both non-marked and both with similar scabbards.

Shorter-length MK2 types - horn handled version (top) and wood-handle M43-style (bottom) both unmarked. The M43-style one came with matching karma and chakmak. The two kukris also differ slightly in handle shape (horn handle is smooth while wood handle has M43 style grooves) and blade-shape (M43 has slightly bloated belly while horn handle's blade belly isn't as pronounced). The scabbards are similar - brown one has a chape while the black one does not. They're a bit different from the ones in the above photo.

The above two shorter MK2-types with three regular-length MK2s - 3rd from top down: MK2 with stamped blade (I forget what the markings say, I think "ATD 43" but I could be wrong), MK2 with "Qeyoom Bros. 1944" stamped on blade (stamp on other side of blade), and MK2 with unmarked blade.

That's all I have to share at the moment. Hope this was of interest. Thanks!